About your Search

20110725
20110725
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
party support and served as a captain in the air force, including tours in afghanistan and iraq. congressman, welcome very much. >> thanks. >> happy to have you. and welcome to everyone. doris, sometimes satire can be the most damning in terms of summing up where we are. "the onion" newspaper has this headline this week -- "congress continues debate over whether or not nation should be economically ruined." if the question is whether washington is broken, make the case that the answer is yes. >> i think there's no question it's broken. you know, our country was created on the principle of compromise. think about it. the states versus the federal government, senate versus house, north versus south. and i remember once, one of the old framers was asked, what is the three principles of this new government you've created? well, the first is compromise, the second is compromise, the third is compromise. something's happened where compromise has become a terrible word in washington. it's partly because the parties have become more ideologically separated. henry clay was the great comp
spending in iraq and -- of spending in iraq and afghanistan. how about that? we will spend more than $833 million in the next three days in kabul and baghdad. in part to help build clean water systems there. in part to help create jobs there. i just think that's inexcusable that we find ourselves in a position where we're spending in two or three days in iraq and afghanistan when we could spend to eliminate this cut and provide clean drinking water for the people of our country. the amount of subsidies we're going to give oil companies. the oil companies made record profits in 2010. they made about $60 billion in profits, if i'm not mistaken. $77 billion, actually, in profits last year. we'll spend six times as much of this cut in the clean drinking water fund to give money away to those oil companies this year. these are people who made $77 billion in profits last year, whose stocks are off the charts, who are paying their c.e.o.'s hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, and we're going to give them about $7 billion from the wallets of the people of this country this year. that'
drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is ph
afghanistan is also winding down and that's the trillion dollars they thought they'd save but they don't list anything with the harry reid plan and not to look at entitlements, how could you possibly say we're taking a hard look and making tough decision abouts the future of our -- of the country economically and not look at entitlements when even the president of the united states has had a problem. let's look at john boehner. he says, all right, i'll raise the debt ceiling. this is what i mean by a two phased plan. just a trillion dollars and we'll have $1.2 trillion in cuts by the end of the year. the future cuts will be commissioned and sent up after they commission a bipartisan panel to decide, you know, republicans or democrats to decide which will be cut and what shouldn't. >> and apparently, it would be along the lines of the cut, cap and balance as you can see right there. here is something that speaker boehner said why he cannot support the democrats' plan. he said the administration says they need all of the increase up front so he doesn't have to deal with this until after the ele
in iraq and afghanistan, about a tr trillion there. highly questionable. speaker boehner's plan has two steps in it. totals $1.2 trillion in cuts. has a six to nine month debt ceiling and cuts and another debt ceiling mechanism next year sometime. david, seems like the president is basically saying all i want, get this out of the way before the incomes election. in that interest i'll give you what you want, basically? >> the democrats, without, and republican. s have drawn a line in the sand. problem is, it's inside it's republican tent. it's basically up to the bedroom. saying, we'll given you cuts, and part of reid's plan is $1.2 trillion in defense and non-defense discretionary cuts. we don't know what the cuts will be. may be real cuts in real problems, that the president and other democrats care a lot about. they have basically yielded to republicans on a big conceptual linking, lifting the debt creeling to spending cuts and -- >> two things republicans still want. a dollar for dollar cut in spending to mamp a debt ceiling increase and a trigger mechanism for a balanced budget amen
is going to count winding down the war in afghanistan as a substantial part of the savings. that could be worth about $1 trillion over 10 years. meanwhile, john boehner is working on his own deficit- reduction debt limit increase plan. he would take -- that plan would be affected in two stages. the first would be $900 trillion or so deficit reduction package, spending cuts, paired with roughly equal amount in debt limit increase. then he would empower a special committee to find an additional $1.60 trillion to authorize or trigger another increase in the debt ceiling. the problem with this proposal, however, it would require raising the debt ceiling by the requisite $2.40 trillion amount into the stages. that is something the president and democratic leaders after yesterday's said is a nonstarter. they say it would create too much uncertainty for the marketplace and the economy if this process had to be replaced at the beginning of next year or summer of next year. >> the house republicans made their own at last it with a cap and balance plan that did not make it to the senate. the pre
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)